Appeal No. 2003-2113 Page 6
Application No. 09/712,582
With these understandings of the scope of claims 3, 6 and 9, we turn to the
rejections under appeal.
The written description rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement is
whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter,
rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The basis for the examiner's written description rejection (answer, p. 3) is that
the originally filed specification fails to disclose (1) both a straight wire and a straight
wire mesh; (2) the wire being both a straight wire and a twisted wire or the mesh being
a twisted wire; and (3) both end caps and a cap portion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007